• Obama to ban assault weapons.
    1,785 replies, posted
[QUOTE=snapshot32;38882149]Seriously. Read about illegal whiskey. You'll be enlightened.[/QUOTE] This is a history of some people making moonshine, not actual consumption figures.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882244]This is a history of some people making moonshine, not actual consumption figures.[/QUOTE] What do you think people did with the moonshine after they made it? Stacked it up and twiddled their fucking thumbs?
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38882215]Are you even reading any of the posts you reply to? Go back to the previous page, the one before it, or the one before that. Guns are well built and they won't break easily in the hands of most owners.[/QUOTE] Except the point is that once they do break, replacement parts would be difficult to acquire. [QUOTE=Tacosheller;38882215]The parts of a gun that usually break are easily replaced because they're not specialized. If a critical part fails you can easily find a gunsmith or a smith who knows about guns because there are literally thousands in America. You can even build your own guns easily with the help of a little metalworking knowhow and the internet.[/QUOTE] Except the authorities would be actively searching out for people with guns and confiscating them in the event of a ban?
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38882200] I would not advice this though, because the round would probably be too powerful to have any meat left, from what I understand. Regardless, they still use these weapons against some large game.[/QUOTE] Not really. 7,62x39 is far less powerful than most of common hunting calibers. It's generally not a good idea to hunt large things with it, better stop at feral hogs and small deer.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;38882183]Why do people need firearms in the first place? I am a non american, I live in Russia that's pretty famous forhigh chances of getting murdered or badly injured. And we don't have firearms and don't need them. There is more trouble after using one. After reading many posts I still don't get why do you need to have a gun? Don't take it as I am against or for gun laws. I can't pick a side yet.[/QUOTE] But almost every shady person in russia has a handgun. Even petty thieves often carry a low caliber handgun.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882111]The original argument was: He was actually wrong, because prohibition DID reduce consumption, despite his insistence it had no effect. I simply extrapolated this further to argue that "If guns were banned, we would see their numbers decrease, alongside a decline of the domestic industry".[/QUOTE] Again. This is meaningless cherry picked stat data.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882244]This is a history of some people making moonshine, not actual consumption figures.[/QUOTE] I'm proposing that your argument regarding consumption of alcohol is irrelevant due to the fact several illegal industries sprung up and started to distribute, the same would happen if guns were outlawed.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38882112]would count but it's not the only gun that's an "assault weapon"[/QUOTE] I know, but I generally meant that type of weaponry, not that individual gun :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882280]Except the point is that once they do break, replacement parts would be difficult to acquire. Except the authorities would be actively searching out for people with guns and confiscating them in the event of a ban?[/QUOTE] I addressed your first point in the post you quoted, kiddo. [quote]The parts of a gun that usually break are easily replaced because they're not specialized. If a critical part fails you can easily find a gunsmith or a smith who knows about guns because there are literally thousands in America.[/quote] And your second point would violate the fourth Amendment, the one against illegal search and seizure.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882280]Except the authorities would be actively searching out for people with guns and confiscating them in the event of a ban?[/QUOTE] With the US' ratio of 88 guns per 100 citizens, they'd pretty much have to kick down every single door. And deal with REALLY PISSED militias.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38882198]Hunting, target/sport shooting, collection, self defense.[/QUOTE] Yeah that makes sense. Actually adding gun education won't quite solve the problem with gunmen shooting people. Remember Breivik? Killed 73 people. But it was not like he took a gun and went to the island to kill some kids. He put 10 years of work into it. He made 600 000$ to fund his mass murder. He made a succesful farm to make a bomb out of fertilizers. He took sport shooting for a long time to get access to Glock 18 and a civilian version of m14. He was a unique occurance because he had some steel balls and would probaby be a very succesful person if wasn't a psycho. Most shootings are done by people who are not that smart, so gun education might stop them. But if such a man decides that he wants to kill kids, he will go throught gun education. Would be good to have that though.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;38882309]I'm proposing that your argument regarding consumption of alcohol is irrelevant due to the fact several illegal industries sprung up and started to distribute, the same would happen if guns were outlawed.[/QUOTE] The fact is that even with those illegal industries in existence (many of which were targeted by the authorities), consumption remained lower than before, even when the amendment repealed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882347]The fact is that even with those illegal industries in existence (many of which were targeted by the authorities), consumption remained lower than before, even when the amendment repealed.[/QUOTE] And we already proved how that doesn't matter when it comes to guns.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38882318]I addressed your first point in the post you quoted, kiddo. And your second point would violate the fourth Amendment, the one against illegal search and seizure.[/QUOTE] Except the fourth amendment doesn't apply in this case? If you held illegal alcohol (or hold cocaine these days) you are still going to be prosecuted.
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;38882315]I know, but I generally meant that type of weaponry, not that individual gun :v:[/QUOTE] same thing, sporterized single-shot rifles could be considered an assault weapon [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;38882335]Yeah that makes sense. Actually adding gun education won't quite solve the problem with gunmen shooting people. Remember Breivik? Killed 73 people. But it was not like he took a gun and went to the island to kill some kids. He put 10 years of work into it. He made 600 000$ to fund his mass murder. He made a succesful farm to make a bomb out of fertilizers. He took sport shooting for a long time to get access to Glock 18 and a civilian version of m14. He was a unique occurance because he had some steel balls and would probaby be a very succesful person if wasn't a psycho. Most shootings are done by people who are not that smart, so gun education might stop them. But if such a man decides that he wants to kill kids, he will go throught gun education. Would be good to have that though.[/QUOTE] he was so determined because he was driven by a political motivation
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38882358]And we already proved how that doesn't matter when it comes to guns.[/QUOTE] There's no idea to over prove Sobotnik. He won't change.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882347]The fact is that even with those illegal industries in existence (many of which were targeted by the authorities), consumption remained lower than before, even when the amendment repealed.[/QUOTE] Nobody cares that consumption was reduced. The issue was that it drastically increased crime. Make guns illegal and precisely the same thing will happen. Now you will have a black market involving people who want nothing more than to protect themselves. Congrats. You just made a ridiculous percentage of the population into criminals.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882347]The fact is that even with those illegal industries in existence (many of which were targeted by the authorities), consumption remained lower than before, even when the amendment repealed.[/QUOTE] Once again, it is irrelevant, the illegal distributive entities had and continue to engage in illegal activities, the fact you cannot disprove that illegal consumption of alcohol significantly dropped debunks your argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882380]Except the fourth amendment doesn't apply in this case? If you held illegal alcohol (or hold cocaine these days) you are still going to be prosecuted.[/QUOTE] Yes it does? Cops don't bust down your door without a warrant and probable cause, neither of which they will have unless you get caught doing something else illegal and have it with you.
And it's not like the government sits on its arse doing nothing if something was banned right? [img]http://toxipedia.org/download/attachments/1188/Prohibition.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Prohibition-Psychology.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=kimr120;38882418]There's no idea to over prove Sobotnik. He won't change.[/QUOTE] What does that sentence mean?
[QUOTE=GunFox;38882420]Nobody cares that consumption was reduced. The issue was that it drastically increased crime. Make guns illegal and precisely the same thing will happen. Now you will have a black market involving people who want nothing more than to protect themselves. Congrats. You just made a ridiculous percentage of the population into criminals.[/QUOTE] Except my argument was that consumption reduced. I don't give a toss what else happened because those aren't relevant to the argument.
On one side I see that some gun limitation would be good. When in russia people had a lot of weapons criminals would steal them and murder a lot of people, making the gun owners responsible. Was common to get murdered with a pistol gifted to a WWII veteran. On the ther side that won't solve much because if you want to kill someone you will always find away, especially if you don't plan to get away. There are melees and explosives after all. I say add gun education and stop treating mass murderers like celebrities. I am actually amazed by what Breivik did, I did watch a documental movie about his mass murder with pleasure, because he was a genius in a way. But for sure I would shoot that guy in the head if I met him. He wanted to promote his manifest and he achieved it because people let him talk on camera. Just like every single political force now uses the shootings to promote their ideas. That's what these people want.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882442]And it's not like the government sits on its arse doing nothing if something was banned right? [img]http://toxipedia.org/download/attachments/1188/Prohibition.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Prohibition-Psychology.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Id like to remind you that NASCAR and shows about modern moonshiners exist.
[QUOTE=Falubii;38882446]What does that sentence mean?[/QUOTE] I managed to mix Swedish with English. I mean there is no idea to convince Sobotnik.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;38882463]Id like to remind you that NASCAR and shows about modern moonshiners exist.[/QUOTE] And does this mean the government isn't out to clamp down on such industries?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882442]And it's not like the government sits on its arse doing nothing if something was banned right? [img]http://toxipedia.org/download/attachments/1188/Prohibition.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Prohibition-Psychology.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything? in the cases where this happened, they had probable cause. It's not hard to keep your gun in your fucking safe, where no cop can get to it unless someone tells them.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38882389]he was so determined because he was driven by a political motivation[/QUOTE] Yeah indeed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38882485]And does this mean the government isn't out to clamp down on such industries?[/QUOTE] It means that if Americans wanted something enough the government would be ineffective.
I find this hilarious. What are we up to now? 5+ pages of prancing and dancing and Sobotnik still hasn't explained how his stats are even remotely pertinent towards prohibition, let alone address how those figures could be transferred over to meaningfully represent what would happen with a durable good instead of a consumable good. I can't even say that your argument is full of holes. That would imply that you had substance to begin with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.